Justia.com Opinion Summary:Download as PDF
Petitioner Emilio Soria was adjudged guilty by the district court of operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant, in violation of Haw. Rev. Stat. 291E-61(a)(1). The intermediate court of appeals (ICA) affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated the ICA's judgment, holding that pursuant to State v. Nesmith, which states that mens rea must be alleged in a section 291E-61(a)(1) charge in order to provide fair notice of the nature and cause of the accusation, the ICA gravely erred in holding that mens rea need not be alleged in a section 291E-61(a)(1) charge. Therefore, Shinsato's section 291E-61(a)(1) charge was deficient for failing to allege mens rea. Remanded to the district court with instructions to dismiss the complaint without prejudice.Receive FREE Daily Opinion Summaries by Email
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
STATE OF HAWAI#I ,
CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
(ICA NO. CAAP NO. 10-0000253; CASE NO. 1DTA-10-05767)
ORDER ACCEPTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, Duffy, and McKenna JJ.)
Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Emilio Soria’s
application for writ of certiorari, filed on November 15, 2011,
is hereby accepted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that no oral argument will be
heard in this case.
Any party may, within ten days and pursuant
to Rule 34(c) of the Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure, move
for retention of oral argument.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, December 21, 2011.
Timothy MacMaster for
petitioner/defendantappellant on the
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.
/s/ James E. Duffy, Jr.
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna